Sudan: Darfur

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many people are dependent on food aid in Darfur, Sudan; to what percentage of the region aid agencies have access; and what assessment has been made of the plight of people living in areas where there is no presence of international non-governmental organisations.

Baroness Amos: In February 2005 the World Food Programme (WFP) distributed food aid to 1.6 million beneficiaries from a target of 2 million in Darfur.
	Security is currently the main factor limiting the delivery of humanitarian aid in Darfur, but the sheer size of Darfur is also a challenge. At the beginning of March, the UN had access to 88 per cent of the 2.45 million people judged to be in need of humanitarian assistance in Darfur, but we expect access to deteriorate severely in some areas when the rainy season begins in May. The UN is currently pre-positioning food in advance of the rains.
	While there has not been a humanitarian needs assessment specifically of areas where international non-governmental organisations are not present, assessments are ongoing across Darfur. For example, on 24 March, a four-day inter-agency assessment to Dar Zagawa in north Darfur was completed—the area had not been accessed since December. Preliminary findings there indicate that coping mechanisms among the local population are incrementally diminishing due to limited access to markets, inaccessibility of normal livestock migration routes and declining wild food stocks. The situation for displaced persons was found to be even worse. The mission recommended general food distribution to all assessed communities, and that further health and education assessments be made. Assessments in other areas will continue over coming days and weeks across Darfur.

Sudan: Darfur

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of aid agencies and United Nations personnel from areas of western Darfur, Sudan.

Baroness Amos: On three consecutive days during the week of 7 March convoys containing both United Nations (UN) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) vehicles were stopped and robbed on roads in west Darfur. On the fourth day there was an aborted attempt at a fourth robbery. This led to UN agencies and NGOs withdrawing their international staff to the state capital Al Geneina. Agencies are now operating again and we understand there have been no repeats of such robberies.

Sudan: Darfur

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What additional measures they will take as a permanent member of the Security Council, as President of the G8, and in other capacities, to bring an end to the violations of human rights in Darfur, Sudan.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The UK was a leading proponent of the International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur. The Security Council is currently discussing next steps to follow up on the report's findings. We have made clear that there can be no impunity for the terrible crimes which have taken place in Darfur.
	The UK and international partners have made clear to all sides that violations of human rights must end, and that they must abide fully by their commitments to stop the fighting and prevent attacks against civilians. We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 1591, passed on 29 March, establishing further sanctions against key actors in Darfur, including targeted sanctions and extending the current Darfur arms embargo to the government of Sudan. We are supporting the expanded African Union mission and are providing support to the United Nations and other agencies, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and International Committee of the Red Cross, to enhance civilian protection.

Sudan: African Union

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will support the recommendations by Jan Pronk, the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative for Sudan, that the African Union force in Sudan should be increased to 8,000 troops, and that its mandate should be strengthened to include protection of the civilian population.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The current African Union (AU) mandate requires it to carry out proactive monitoring and allows it to protect civilians in the immediate vicinity under imminent threat of attack. The AU and the United Nations Department for Peace Keeping Operations, together with representatives from the European Union, US, Canada and the UK, have recently returned from a two-week assessment mission to Darfur, Khartoum and Addis, to consider the work being undertaken by the AU mission, and what further support could be offered. Our expectation is that the assessment mission will recommend that the first priority be to get the current monitoring mission (of up to 3,320 personnel) deployed and fully operational as soon as possible.
	As the next stage, the mission's view is that the AU will need more troops on the ground, and they have suggested a figure of 5,887. It is for the African Union's Peace and Security Council to decide how to take these recommendations forward. We have made clear our willingness to support the AU, should it decide that an expanded mission was required. We have already provided significant financial and technical assistance to the AU.

Chechen Republic

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evaluations they have made of the significance of the three judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in February arising out of the situation in the Chechen Republic; what were the outcomes of those evaluations; and what effect they will have upon representations by the Government to the Russian federal Government on their policies in the Chechen Republic.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Countries sign up to a set of values when they join the Council of Europe, including a commitment to the rule of law and to defending human rights. The European Court of Human Rights makes its judgments based on these values, and we expect countries to fulfil their obligations when judgments go against them.
	The judgments on claims brought by Chechen civilians are the first instance of an international court finding Moscow guilty of human rights violations in Chechnya. The rulings set an important precedent, especially as there are currently around 120 cases brought by Chechen applicants pending before the court.
	Our European Union (EU) partners and ourselves expect the Russian Government to take these judgments seriously and to act on the findings. We have made this clear to the Russian Government on a number of occasions, including during the recent EU-Russia Human Rights consultations, and have been encouraged by Russian assurances that they are prepared to implement the rulings.

International Criminal Court

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will promote a Security Council resolution calling for the prosecution at the International Criminal Court of individuals who have committed crimes against humanity; and whether they will use their influence to persuade the United States not to veto it.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have made clear our preference for the situation in Darfur to be referred by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court, as recommended by the International Commission of Inquiry into Darfur.
	We are currently holding discussions with the US as well as other partners, in capitals and New York, on the draft text of a Security Council resolution that will address the issue of judicial accountability. Our aim is to secure consensus.

Prisoners: Reoffending

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) finding that prisoners are less likely to reoffend if they maintain contact with their families; and what is their response to the PRT recommendation that family contact development officers should be employed by the Prison Service to facilitate these contacts.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Her Majesty's Government accept that positive family contact can be an important factor in the successful resettlement of prisoners into the community.
	There are a variety of ways in which family contact can be maintained. A number of prisons in England and Wales have appointed family liaison officers with a similar role to family contact development officers. Giving responsibility to a particular member of staff is one model but there are others and the choice is a matter for local discretion.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total number of anti-social behaviour orders so far granted by the courts; how many orders have been breached; how many custodial sentences have been imposed because of those breaches; what are the figures for each region; and whether the use of these orders varies widely from place to place.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The available information for England and Wales is given in the tables below and shows the widespread use of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in all regions. However, ASBOs are just one tool available for tackling anti-social behaviour and local agencies are encouraged to use them alongside other interventions such as injunctions, warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts.
	Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for, respectively, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office.
	
		Table A: Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued, as reported to the Home Office, at all courts, by Government Office Region (GOR) and type of court, from 1 April 1999 to 30 September 2004
		
			 CJS area Magistrates' courts The Crown court County courts Total 
			 North-east GOR 160 6 -- 166 
			 Cleveland 40 -- -- 40 
			 Durham 52 1 -- 53 
			 Northumbria 68 5 -- 73 
			 North-west GOR 893 95 8 996 
			 Cheshire 73 3 -- 76 
			 Cumbria 45 3 -- 48 
			 Greater Manchester 532 70 6 608 
			 Lancashire 131 15 -- 146 
			 Merseyside 112 4 2 118 
			 Yorkshire & the 
			 Humber GOR 483 13 3 499 
			 Humberside 62 1 -- 63 
			 North Yorkshire 31 3 -- 34 
			 South Yorkshire 99 1 3 103 
			 West Yorkshire 291 -- -- 299 
			 East Midlands GOR 160 29 1 190 
			 Derbyshire 39 8 -- 47 
			 Leicestershire 14 6 1 21 
			 Lincolnshire 11 4 -- 15 
			 Northamptonshire 29 2 -- 31 
			 Nottinghamshire 67 9 -- 76 
			 West Midlands GOR 509 18 6 533 
			 Staffordshire 72 5 2 79 
			 Warwickshire 44 1 1 46 
			 West Mercia 137 -- -- 137 
			 West Midlands 256 12 3 271 
			 East GOR 291 22 3 316 
			 Bedfordshire 26 5 -- 31 
			 Cambridgeshire 42 3 -- 45 
			 Essex 40 1 1 42 
			 Hertfordshire 57 5 -- 62 
			 Norfolk 54 4 -- 58 
			 Suffolk 72 4 2 78 
			 London GOR 343 17 4 364 
			 Greater London(1) 343 17 4 364 
			 South East GOR 349 21 -- 377 
			 Hampshire 79 9 -- 92 
			 Kent 77 3 -- 80 
			 Surrey 30 -- -- 30 
			 Sussex 98 7 -- 106 
			 Thames Valley 65 -- 2 69 
			 South West GOR 192 48 1 241 
			 Avon & Somerset 92 14 1 107 
			 Devon & Cornwall 40 30 -- 70 
			 Dorset 28 -- -- 28 
			 Gloucestershire 20 3 -- 23 
			 Wiltshire 12 1 -- 13 
			 England 3,380 269 33 3,682 
			 Wales 136 5 3 144 
			 Dyfed Powys 18 -- -- 18 
			 Gwent 22 -- 2 24 
			 North Wales 33 3 -- 36 
			 South Wales 63 2 1 66 
			 England & Wales 3,516 274 36 3,826 
		
	
	1 Metropolitan Police and City of London.
	
		Table B: Number of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, breached and where breach resulted in a custodial sentence, as reported to the Home Office, by Government Office Region (GOR), 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2003 1 
		
			 CJS area ASBOs issued ASBOs breached Custodial sentencegiven for breach of an ASBO 2 
			 North-east GOR 107 58 27 
			 Cleveland 26 17 4 
			 Durham 34 26 16 
			 Northumbria 47 15 7 
			 North-west GOR 529 229 137 
			 Cheshire 43 15 10 
			 Cumbria 30 17 12 
			 Greater   Manchester 317 138 88 
			 Lancashire 68 37 17 
			 Merseyside 71 22 10 
			 Yorkshire & the   Humber GOR 200 91 47 
			 Humberside 23 10 6 
			 North Yorkshire 15 8 3 
			 South Yorkshire 52 24 15 
			 West Yorkshire 110 49 23 
			 East Midlands   GOR 81 34 16 
			 Derbyshire 20 11 6 
			 Leicestershire 10 4 1 
			 Lincolnshire 8 5 1 
			 Northamptonshire 11 1 1 
			 Nottinghamshire 32 13 7 
			 West Midlands   GOR 338 158 92 
			 Staffordshire 46 15 8 
			 Warwickshire 29 14 3 
			 West Mercia 100 48 28 
			 West Midlands 163 81 53 
			 East GOR 145 51 23 
			 Bedfordshire 22 12 6 
			 Cambridgeshire 19 8 3 
			 Essex 15 2 2 
			 Hertfordshire 31 9 6 
			 Norfolk 25 11 1 
			 Suffolk 33 9 5 
			 London GOR 146 46 31 
			 Greater   London 3 146 46 31 
			 South East GOR 177 57 24 
			 Hampshire 44 20 12 
			 Kent 51 7 1 
			 Surrey 10 4 2 
			 Sussex 46 18 6 
			 Thames Valley 26 8 3 
			 South West   GOR 92 35 20 
			 Avon &   Somerset 47 17 8 
			 Devon &   Cornwall 20 8 6 
			 Dorset 8 2 1 
			 Gloucestershire 10 5 3 
			 Wiltshire 7 3 2 
			 England 1,815 759 417 
			 Wales 77 34 20 
			 Dyfed Powys 11 5 4 
			 Gwent 10 5 3 
			 North Wales 20 11 4 
			 South Wales 36 13 9 
			 Total England   and Wales 1,892 793 437 
		
	
	1 Breaches are counted in this table on a persons basis, i.e. multiple breaches (occurring at the same time), or where the order has been breached on more than one occasion, are all counted as one breach. The breach resulting in the severest penalty for a person is used.
	2 Excluding two persons given a fully suspended sentence and eight cases where a sentence of one day in police cells was given.
	3 Metropolitan Police and City of London.

Afghan Hijackers

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many of the Afghans who arrived at Stansted Airport in February 2000 onboard a hijacked aircraft remain in the United Kingdom; what is their immigration status; what were the legal costs incurred in allowing these individuals to remain in the United Kingdom; and whether any other costs were incurred.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of the 170 passengers and crew on the plane 79 remain in the UK. Some 25 have been granted asylum or leave to remain in another capacity, four have appeals outstanding against the refusals of asylum or human rights applications, 32 have outstanding applications for asylum or leave to remain in another capacity and nine have exhausted their rights of appeal against the refusal of asylum or human rights applications and await removal. The appeals of nine have been allowed on human rights grounds and consideration is being given to their position. It is not possible to determine the legal costs arising from the hijacking and the consideration of asylum and human rights applications and appeals arising from them without incurring disproportionate expense. Additional costs have been incurred in providing many of them with accommodation and subsistence support.

Armed Forces: Recruitment Age

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the terms of service regulating the right of child recruits to terminate their service in HM Armed Forces and the manner in which the right can be exercised.

Lord Bach: The Armed Forces operate a policy whereby all new recruits, regardless of age, who have completed 28 days' service (excluding leave) have a right to discharge within the first six months of service by giving not less than 14 days' notice in writing to the commanding officer if they decide that a career in the Armed Forces is not for them. In addition, service personnel under 18 years and three months of age who have passed their statutory six-month period for "discharge as of right", and have had their clear "unhappiness" at their choice of career registered by their commanding officer before reaching 18, can be considered for release from the Armed Forces. This provision does not provide "discharge as of right". The commanding officer has discretion to delay a decision on discharge if he has doubts about the permanence of the individual's "unhappiness" up until the individual reaches 18 years and three months of age. However, it is exceedingly rare for such an "unhappy" individual to be refused permission to leave.

Armed Forces: Recruitment Age

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will raise the minimum age of recruitment of members of HM Armed Forces from 16 to 18 years.

Lord Bach: This issue is under consideration as part of the Government's response to the House of Commons Defence Committee's recent report on duty of care. A copy of the Government's response will be placed in the Library of the House.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the average daily fee rate for external consultants engaged in the future aircraft carrier programme; and what the scale of allowable expenses for those consultants is.

Lord Bach: No external consultants are currently employed directly by the Ministry of Defence on the future aircraft carrier programme. The only areas of external assistance currently engaged are the provision of legal and insurance advice to the department in the drafting of the alliance agreement and works contracts. Such assistance is provided under general arrangements negotiated by the department and the pricing details are commercially sensitive.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will place copies of latest ship plans of the future aircraft carrier in Library of the House.

Lord Bach: The future aircraft carrier (CVF) design continues to evolve as we seek to balance the overall performance, time and cost parameters as part of normal assessment phase activity. Design drawings are provided to the department by industry as part of work performed under the assessment phase contracts. Placing them in the Library of the House would prejudice the commercial interests of the department and industry and to be prejudicial to the capability and security of the Armed Forces.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What provision they have made in the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to advise individual claimants that any award under the scheme does not preclude claimants from bringing a claim for negligence through the courts; and whether in some cases claimants may be better advised to pursue a claim through the courts; and
	What provision they have made to advise claimants under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme on abatement of benefits.

Lord Bach: Information and publicity material for the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) make clear that claiming compensation under no-fault AFCS does not preclude a service person, former service person or their dependants from making a civil claim for damages where employer negligence is an issue. They also make clear that, in such circumstances, this may lead to a higher level of compensation.
	This material also explains how an award under the AFCS will be abated against pension scheme benefits and awards from third party insurance or from the courts. The Veterans' Agency's War Pensions Welfare Service will be able to help individuals access information on how an award might affect entitlement to means-tested benefits.
	This information is being made available to personnel administration units within the Armed Forces, to individual service personnel and to interested ex-service organisations, both in hard copy and electronically, and an advice line will also be available through the Veterans' Agency.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made provision to protect benefits received under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme by means of special need trusts.

Lord Bach: Lump sum injury payments awarded under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) are individual payments of compensation for personal injury caused by service in the Armed Forces. Depending on a number of factors, it may be advantageous to the recipient to place the lump sum in trust if he or she is also in receipt of income related benefits.
	It is a matter for the recipient to decide what arrangements to make with respect to these payments, but payment notifications issued by the Veterans' Agency will set out the position described above and will advise the individual to seek information from the Department for Work and Pensions or from an independent adviser.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they gave to allowing widows and widowers, their children, and personnel medically discharged, the right to opt out of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme if they could be eligible for alternative compensatory provision.

Lord Bach: The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) is a no-fault compensation scheme, which provides benefits to service personnel, ex-service personnel and service dependants where injury, illness or death is caused by service in the Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005.
	The AFCS will automatically consider entitlement to benefits where a service person dies in service leaving dependants, and where a service person is invalided out of the Armed Forces. In all other cases, it will be the decision of the service person, ex-service person or service dependant whether to make a claim. A claim does not preclude other routes to compensation.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will clarify the use of the word "compensation" in the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme; and whether they will consult the Royal British Legion's Solicitors' Group on its suggestions for alternative terminology.

Lord Bach: The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides benefits on a no-fault basis for injury, illness and death caused by service in the Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. The term compensation is used in line with the Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition, namely "something awarded to compensate for loss, suffering or injury". The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that payment of benefits under the AFCS would not remove a service person's, ex-service person's or service dependant's right to make a common law claim where negligence is at issue. This is also explained in the booklet issued to all currently serving personnel.
	The Ministry of Defence met the Royal British Legion's solicitors' group on 11 February 2005 and discussed a range of issues.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance they provide to the most vulnerable claimants under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to seek independent legal advice; and
	Whether they advise vulnerable claimants under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme to contact the Royal British Legion for independent legal advice.

Lord Bach: The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) is a no-fault compensation scheme, which provides benefits to service personnel, ex-service personnel and service dependants where injury, illness or death is caused by service in the Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. Assistance to vulnerable claimants is available from the War Pensioners Welfare Service of the Veterans Agency, who can provide details of other supporting organisations, including the Royal British Legion. The booklet on the AFCS, which is being provided to all currently serving personnel, also gives details of such organisations and explains that the Royal British Legion can provide contact details for a panel of solicitors.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What provision they have made to cover future care costs by the state for the care of the most seriously incapacitated personnel where an award received under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is abated.

Lord Bach: The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), like the War Pensions Scheme (WPS), is a no-fault compensation scheme. The AFCS provides lump sum benefits and, to the most seriously injured ex-service personnel, a guaranteed income payment (GIP).
	AFCS does not make separate provision for future care costs, the main route to healthcare (including nursing) is through the NHS with priority treatment provided for accepted disorders. AFCS recipients will be able to claim state social security benefits in the normal way including care and disability benefits.
	To avoid double compensation for regular service personnel, the AFCS GIP is abated by any pension scheme benefits paid under the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme. Parallel abatement rules apply to benefits to reservists. In addition, where civil damages are recovered for the same injury, the AFCS legislation includes a discretion to reduce its benefits

Gulf War Illnesses

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 8 March (WA 74), whether, in keeping with the Ministry of Defence's ministerially-stated commitment to "transparency" in dealing with issues affecting veterans, they will provide Parliament with full information on their legal and other costs incurred in contesting war pension claims of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf War.

Lord Bach: I refer the noble Lord to the Answers I gave to the Lord Morris of Manchester on 22 March 2005 (Official Report, cols. WA 20–21).

Khamisiyah: Nerve Agents

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 22 March (WA 22), what was the tonnage of sarin and cyclosarin involved in the fall-out from the bombing by United States forces of Iraq's chemical arms depots at Khamisiyah in March 1991.

Lord Bach: The total amount of sarin and cyclosarin released as a consequence of the demolitions at Khamisiyah has been estimated by the US Department of Defense to be 321 kilograms from the Khamisiyah pit and 51 kilograms from bunker 73. A breakdown by individual nerve agent is not available.

Jubilee Line Fraud Case

Lord Skelmersdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they approved higher than normal allowances for the jurors in the Jubilee Line fraud case.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Government recognise that jurors who give up their time to do an important civic duty are more likely to suffer personal and financial hardship during trials that last a long time. The Jubilee Line fraud case highlighted the need for this issue to be addressed sooner rather than later. Therefore on 15 November 2004, a new non-retrospective maximum reimbursement for financial loss of £200 per day was introduced from the 201st day of jury service. This would now apply to all future trials, should they last that long.

Horse Guards Parade: Treasury Building

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the area and estimated rental value of HM Treasury's building at Horse Guards Parade, London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The area occupied by HM Treasury at 1 Horse Guards Road is approximately 22,215 square metres. The estimated current market rent (as defined in practice statement 3.4 of the RICS Appraisal and Valuation Standards 5th Edition) is approximately £7,500,000 per annum.

Public Expenditure

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the items of public expenditure which have been reclassified from capital to current spending in the National Accounts since 1997; and what the amount of reclassification was in each case.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The national accounts are drawn up by the independent ONS. They are based on the definitions in the European System of Accounts (ESA 95), which are determined by Eurostat. Interpretation of these standards is a matter for the ONS. Changes in these standards are a matter for these and other international statistical agencies.

Incapacity Benefit

Lord Steinberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to change the criteria for the receipt of long-term invalidity benefit; and, if so, how.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Department for Work and Pension's five-year strategy sets out how we intend to replace incapacity benefit for new claimants with a new structure that more actively focuses people on their own aspiration to get back to work.
	This would be done in the context of the national roll-out of Pathways to Work which offers a much more sophisticated system of personalised condition management, employment and financial support. The five-year strategy makes clear that existing claimants, including those who claimed invalidity benefit before 1995, would be free to access all the help and support on offer to help them get back to work.

Pensions

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Hollis of Heigham on 14 March (WA 119), whether the Answer is consistent with (a) the Department for Work and Pensions leaflet NP46 issued in April 2004; and (b) the Ministry of Defence Armed Forces Pension Scheme leaflet on members' guaranteed minimum pension.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can confirm that my Written Answer of 14 March (WA 119) is consistent with the information given in these leaflets. Any indexation of guaranteed minimum pensions as required under the contracting-out legislation is the responsibility of occupational schemes themselves. Where further indexation is due to pensioners through the additional state pension, this does not form part of the guaranteed minimum pension but is additional to it.

Hepatitis C and HIV Inadvertent Blood Infection: Payment Schemes

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When and by which Minister or Ministers the powers of the Macfarlane Trust were decreed to include the provision of financial support for widows of haemophilia patients who have died from HIV infection by contaminated National Health Service blood products; and what reasons were adduced for their inclusion; and
	Which Minister or Ministers decreed the powers of the Skipton Fund to exclude from financial support from the fund the widows of haemophilia patients who have died from HIV infection by contaminated National Health Service blood products; and what reasons were adduced for their inclusion.

Lord Warner: The two distinct schemes administered by the Skipton Fund (established last year) and the Macfarlane Trust (established in 1988) have been established for different purposes.

Tuberculosis

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 14 March (WA 121), what proportion of cases of tuberculosis are among persons who acquired the infection outside the United Kingdom.

Lord Warner: The latest available data are for 2002. A total of 6,083 cases were reported, 1,999 of which occurred in people who were born in the United Kingdom, and 4,084 occurred in people who were born elsewhere.
	However, it is not possible to determine from these data in which country a person acquired their infection.

Salmon

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What investigation is under way to examine the major releases of farmed salmon in recent escapes to ascertain the extent of interbreeding with wild salmon; and whether the Environment Agency will undertake a report on this matter.

Lord Whitty: Almost all salmon production takes place in Scotland. As a result of severe storms experienced by the Western Isles during January the aquaculture industry sustained losses resulting from escapes of farmed salmon. I understand that no investigation has been undertaken to ascertain the extent of interbreeding with wild salmon in this instance.
	Scientists have advised that salmon escaping in winter suffer the greatest post-release mortality rates of all. About 0.5 per cent of escapees tend to return to spawn in rivers in the vicinity of their site of loss. However, because they are not primed specifically to these rivers, by spawning time the escaped fish will disperse more widely than is usual (i.e. for wild fish).

Fishery Protection Squadron

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What aerial surveillance resources are currently available to the Fishery Protection Squadron.
	In each of past four years:
	(a) how many aerial surveillance missions were flown in support of the Fishery Protection Squadron;
	(b) what was the total duration of the missions flown; and
	(c) which platforms were used.

Lord Whitty: Defra contracts out the services of aerial surveillance to DirectFlight Limited. For 2005–06, DirectFlight will provide Defra with 1,000 "on task" hours. The company operates two Cessna 406 aircraft out of Exeter Airport and is tasked by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate to undertake monitoring, control and surveillance of English and Welsh waters within British fishery limits. The aircraft have occasionally operated in waters of another member state and in international waters.
	As part of our tasking programme, consideration is given to joint operations between surveillance aircraft and Royal Navy fishery protection vessels where it is appropriate for effective monitoring, control and surveillance.
	No detailed records are maintained of flights where tasking of a ship and an aircraft is programmed or has been undertaken. Likewise, an aircraft and a FPV may communicate and co-operate but no detailed records of this are maintained. Communication between aircraft and FPV is encouraged by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and even though an aircraft and FPV may not be working in the same area communications may take place as the vessel might be gaining an insight as to activity for areas it may be working in later in a patrol. All aircraft sightings are downloaded and collected by the ships the following morning after a flight.
	The following table sets out the activity of the two aircraft for the past four years.
	
		
			  2001 2002 2003 2004 
			 On Task Hours 1 1,773 1,741 1,440 1,484 
			 Total Mission hours 1,955 1,895 1,632 1,633 
			 Targeted Hours 2  (No. of Flights) 1,061   (270) 900   (222) 709   (181) 686   (197) 
			 Routine Hours (No. of Flights) 712   (194) 841   (215) 731   (198) 798   (180) 
			 Total number of patrols 470 437 384 374 
		
	
	Notes
	On task hours relates to the time when the aircraft is charging Defra for the patrol.
	Mission hours relates to the difference between take-off and touch-down times.
	Target relates to a patrol where the aircraft is undertaking a specific task within the patrol parameter.
	Routine relates to a patrol where the aircraft is generally tending to conduct a search patrol without any specific target.
	Total Patrols: This may include aborted patrols or patrols with both a routine and target element.
	1 Figures rounded to nearest whole hour.
	2 Targeted and Routine hours are a function of the "on task" hours.

Avian Flu: Importation of Bird Feathers

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 21 March (WA 15) on the importation of bird feathers, what training is required by those responsible for carrying out the sensory check on all imports.

Lord Whitty: Veterinary checks are the responsibility of official veterinary surgeons (OVS). The Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2004 require that the OVS are qualified veterinary surgeons that have participated in a specialised training programme. Defra organises training courses for the OVS. Trained technical officers may assist the OVS and the OVS is responsible for ensuring that the technical officers have undergone suitable training.

Avian Flu: Importation of Bird Feathers

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is any possibility of contaminated material being caught up and included as part of the baling process when imported bird feathers are baled after treatment.

Lord Whitty: The possibility of a very small amount cross-contamination cannot be completely excluded.
	However, commercial demand for a high quality product makes it unlikely that such contamination would occur. Checks at import would identify contamination at anything other than a very low level.

Avian Flu: Importation of Bird Feathers

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether bacteriological spot checks are necessary to ensure that imported feathers and baling material have been sufficiently treated to destroy all viral contamination.

Lord Whitty: Under EU rules every consignment of processed feathers from countries under restriction because of avian influenza are checked at border inspection posts on entry into the EU. Imports of processed feathers must be accompanied by a commercial document stating that the feathers have been cleaned with a steam current or by some other method ensuring that no pathogens are transmitted shall accompany the consignment.
	Cleaning feathers with a steam current or by some other method ensuring that no pathogens are transmitted is considered effective in significantly reducing the quantity of virus, if present, to a negligible level. Therefore no further testing is carried out.

Cormorants: Control Licences

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of the licences issued to control cormorants since 16 September 2004 relate to still water fisheries; and what proportion to riverine fisheries.

Lord Whitty: The proportion of licences issued is 75 per cent to still water fisheries and 25 per cent to riverine fisheries.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by the Lord Whitty on 23 March (Official Report, Col. GC 146), what they understand by the phrase "we have introduced better surveillance" in relation to bovine tuberculosis and the acute risk of infection of livestock by badgers.

Lord Whitty: The statement referred to a package of new measures announced by Defra on 1 November 2004 to tighten surveillance and reduce the risk of bovine tuberculosis (TB) spreading to new areas. These include:
	recalculation of routine testing intervals to ensure TB testing complies with commission legislation while offering robust protection;
	the imposition of livestock movement restrictions immediately a herd's routine test becomes overdue;
	a more rigorous and systematic approach to identifying and dealing with potential new TB hotspots; and
	the introduction of rigorous testing schedules for new and reformed herds.
	Further information is available in the publication TB in Cattle—changes to testing and controls available in the Library of the House or on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/tbcattle04.pdf.

Badgers

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they consider that badgers deserve total protection, when such protection is not provided for any other species of wild mammal.

Lord Whitty: Badgers and their setts are fully protected under the provisions of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. However, the Act does provide for the department to issue licences to interfere with badgers or their setts to prevent, amongst other things, serious damage to land, crops or property. Before such licences are issued, the site in question will be visited by the technical staff of the, Wildlife Management Team, the department's wildlife advisers, who will assess the situation and report to the administration unit who will then decide whether or not a licence will be issued.

Road Bridges

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 17 March (WA 150), whether the bridge and highway authorities are adhering to the advice on the methodology for measuring bridge heights set out in the Traffic Signs Manual; and whether they are under any strict obligation to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Her Majesty's Government do not monitor compliance with the non-statutory advice given in chapter 4 of the Traffic Signs Manual. This is the responsibility of the relevant traffic authorities and bridge owners.

Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many working days there are between the date that the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/639) were laid before Parliament and the date the regulations come into force.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The regulations are due to come into force on 4 April, the 22nd day after the date the regulations were laid before Parliament (14 March). There are two public holidays during this period. Excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays there are 13 days between the date the regulations were laid before Parliament and the date on which they are due to come into force, including the date of laying but not the date they come into force.

Crossrail Bill

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will allow the Office of Rail Regulation or Network Rail to petition against the Crossrail Bill, provided that they can establish locus standi.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Secretary of State has no powers to direct either the Office of Rail Regulation or Network Rail not to petition against the Crossrail Bill. Discussions will continue with both bodies with a view to resolving as many issues as possible which might give rise to petitions.